Posted
by
samzenpuson Thursday December 22, 2011 @01:52AM
from the no-fine-for-you dept.

Sir Mal Fet writes "In line with previous rulings discussed here, a judge in Spain has ruled that P2P technologies are 'completely neutral' (original in Spanish ; Google translation ), thus dismissing a lawsuit originated in 2008 from the Spanish Association of Musical Producers (Promusicae), Warner, EMI, and Sony suing Pablo Soto, a Spanish man who created the Blubster, MP2P y Piolet programs to share files. The labels demanded 13 million euros in damages arguing that the mere existence and distribution of P2P technologies violated copyright, but the ruling stated the technology itself was neutral, so the creator could not be held responsible for how the software was used, and demanded that they pay for legal expenses. Promusicae said it was going to appeal the ruling."

"If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make you fat." -- Unknown

What do buses, cars, trains, p2p, and http all have in common? They are general methods of transportation. Guns just transport bullets. At high velocity. Into a target. A gun is a weapon, not a neutral method of data transport. Unless the next step up from fiber-optic cable is bullets.

Actually, bullets have higher latency, though I am now wondering what the bandwidth of a bullet would be if you made it with microSD cards. Perhaps we can have a new wireless internet spec based on the cell carriers shooting their customers. Doesn't seem to far off from the current model.

Hard argument to make as softer doesn't matter (momentum is just a factor of weight and speed) and would likely make it impossible to fire and slower or lighter would make it considerably less accurate.

I am pretty sure that the 31k gun deaths per year in the United States have more to do with the war on drugs and other "tough on crime" efforts than with guns themselves, as well as the generally bad welfare among the poor in this country. People with guns do not automatically start shooting other people (I happen to own three hunting rifles, and I would never point any of those weapons at another person even when I know they are not loaded); on the other hand, people who are smuggling contraband at the risk of life imprisonment are pretty likely to kill other people, whether with a gun, a machete, dangerous chemicals, or any other means. Guns are a convenient way to kill people because they separate killers from the mess, but you have to already want to kill people before that becomes a factor.

As a point of comparison, how many Canadian gun owners are murdering people?

America's poor are fat precicsely because of bad welfare. Healthy food is expensive. Fattening food is cheap. Pasta, potatos ($2 for a huge bag), macaroni and cheese... no matter what the food, if it's good for you it's expensive, bad for you if it's cheap.

You try eating on $40 a month; that's how much a person on SSI disability gets in food stamps, and she only gets $600 in cash.

But you go ahead living in your fantasy world where the only people without jobs are lazy and nobody ever goes hungry here.

You completely missed the point. The point is that we could eliminate cars and have a far larger reduction in deaths. The point is that death can not be avoided and the cost and benefit to society must be weighed. How many of those deaths were caused by illegally obtained firearms? How many were self-inflicted and would have likely simply occurred by other means had a gun not been available? How many lives have been saved or serious injuries avoided because someone was able to defend themselves? How much of a deterrent to abuse by government is a well armed populace? If you could go back and prevent the gun from ever being created, I might be able to agree with you that the world would have been better off without them ever existing, but there is no way to remove guns from those who shouldn't have them, so there is no good reason to take them from those who should. It would only make the situation worse, rather than better.

To look at the car example, it would be like saying that we are going to take cars away from everybody except those who do hit and runs. We'll let them keep their cars and give them more targets when people start walking in the road since nobody else has cars, so they don't expect to be hit. Oh, and we'll also remove all stoplights and speed limits. See how well it works out for society.

There's no silver bullet to this, no. But you don't have to eliminate it, you just have to make the cost/benefit not worth it. If you hold a knife to my throat or point a gun at me I'm going to hand over my wallet either way, but if one carries a bunch of firearm-related charges on top maybe it's not worth it. It's a risk buying it, it's a risk if your house is searched, sure killers might still find a gun but your average burglar or robber won't carry one "just because" and there's a much smaller chance it

Technically true, but once the bullet is fired, it's generally to late to do anything... But yeah, you can do something about it before, but then you just have to be sure the loaded gun is on the good side of the bulletproof whatever.

The thing about guns (vs other weapons) is that they truly are "the great equalizer." Unlike with blunt or edged weapons (which can be anything from your bare hands or a butter knife to a samurai sword), you don't need anywhere as much physical strength, prowess or training to be able to defend yourself with a gun. Hell, even for just deterrence, they're remarkably more effective; which would be more intimidating, a little lady old lady assuming a defensive "martial arts" stance... or that same little old l

Which also makes TPB's name choice "The Pirate Bay" stupid. It would be like naming your kindergarten "The Rapists Playground" and then jabbering how people need to have privacy there. It's obvious what happens on the site and what it is intended for, and therefore makes the owners liable too. They should had used some more neutral name. Of course, they wouldn't had grown so big and make millions otherwise.

The name BitTorrent is obviously a thinly-veiled allusion to piracy.Pirate steal pieces of eight. *Bit*s come eight to a pack.Water forms *Torrent*s. The sea is made of water. Pirates sail the seven seas.And so: BitTorrent.That judge must be blind (or bought off by Big Piracy) not to see that BitTorrent exists solely for piratical purposes.

Is the legal system going to require people to change their names if someone else considers it offensive?

There are people stupid enough to demand just that.

I remember when I was out looking for a job in electronics, and some guy was telling people I "stole" his name. (I have the same first and last name as he did.) I didn't even know this was going on until someone put me on the phone with him--it still took me a while to figure out.

This made it even harder to find a job. I even had one prospective employer say "if that is even your real name." Dumb asses.

If it was just their name, then maybe, but when the name and observed behavior seem to show intent, it is no longer discriminatory. Choosing a name like the pirates bay that displays intent and then acting in a way that confirms that intent does not make it discriminatory, it makes it criminal. If I made a group called the "Rich Guy Assassination League" and started a Craig's List like site where a huge number of the listings "just happened to be" hit contracts for rich guys, I'd justifiably be in hot leg

It's like any technology. Think of any kind of technology, any kind of device, any kind of tool. There are no "good" or "bad" technologies, all of them can be used for good or bad. From a rock which can be used to crack open a coconut or to crack open a head, to a rocket which can be used to transport a satellite to orbit or a bomb to some other place on the surface of our planet. And if fissionable material only had nefarious applications, we wouldn't have a hard time convincing everyone that it's not a good idea to hand any to "questionable" countries. Hell, not even enriching it to make it weapon grade material is a dead sure indicator that someone has bad intentions, due to the way some reactors work only with such material.

I'm glad a judge finally caught on and noticed that progressing technology and inventing a tool cannot be seen as a crime by itself. It's how the technology is used that should be judged. Do not blame technology for anything bad happening. It's the people using it, not the technology!

It's like any technology. Think of any kind of technology, any kind of device, any kind of tool. There are no "good" or "bad" technologies, all of them can be used for good or bad. (...) Hell, not even enriching it to make it weapon grade material is a dead sure indicator that someone has bad intentions, due to the way some reactors work only with such material.

I'm pretty sure no reactor design requires weapon grade material, unless you purposely made one just so you can pretend it's for a reactor. Regular nuclear fuel contains a small bit of weapons grade material, like the fuel for an incineration facility has to have some degree of flammable material - when people started sorting their junk too well, they had to add some small part of paper back into the mix. But weapons grade material is more like napalm, yes it will burn but it's way, way overkill if you just

Not good for hunting is debatable. If nothing else, they make a really nice sporting equipment. I don't know about you, but I find it a worthwhile recreational activity to shoot at target discs and see whether I can hit the center. Considering HOW I do it, with the calmness and concentration necessary for me to get any sensible results, I doubt that the skill is applicable in a life-or-death situation, so I guess it doesn't even qualify as practice for the "just-in-case" case. Not to mention that my chances

You could use the same argument for javelins as aside from sport their only use in antiquity was to kill people and/or hunting (I guarantee you a pistol depending on calibre can be more effective than a javelin for hunting purposes)

If sport is not a good enough purpose for you for people to have items, then let us ban chess sets also, as it's only 'good' purpose is gaming and a person could bludgeon someone with a decent quality stainless playing piece.

To quote you from an earlier post [slashdot.org]: "Not everyone deserves to state their views because frankly, they are just too stupid or uneducated for that privilege. You are a good example of one." Handguns do not need to have a "good" use, if an individual has the right to own/use one that is sufficient. Just as you are wrong about one's right to free speech, you are wrong about the right to keep and bear arms.

You don't need to go "back in time". In many other countries - such as here in the UK - standard Police officers don't carry weapons. I've never even seen or used a real gun outside of a clay pigeon shooting range.

I have a BB pistol, but that's not going to do much more than give someone a nasty little cut or bruise when used with copper BBs - and even then it would be illegal for me to display it in public.

Handguns are good for hunting. I use them myself on a regular basis (3-4 times a week) - a 4.5mm CO2 match pistol for rats (in close quarters) and squirrels (when they're approachable), a 5.5mm spring pistol for finishing hares, and a 6mm BB for chasing pigeons off of rafters. Much easier than getting a dozen guys together to chase rodents with baseball bats, slightly quieter and very much safer.

You had to use a car analogy right off the bat? Seriously? If you had only used a "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" analogy you would have left a lot of people thinking about which side of the argument they would take.

Your analogy is close, but in the case of P2P, most of their use is for illegal things.

So it's more like suing Ford over a car they sold which included features like secret compartments (that criminals use to hide drugs), a giant bull bar (which they advertise as being able to run over a person with no damage to the car), and is advertised as being completely bulletproof, with holes for you to shoot out of.

Sure, it could still be end with them being ruled in favour, but it's not quite as clear cut as you ma

I only ever use P2P to download FOSS and, windows fixes. There are plenty of music streams if I want to listen to something. I suspect that Comcast is stepping on the streams though at the behest of XXAA or some other equally praiseworthy organization. These guys rip off artists and slander titles out of principle. So I hope someone is sticking it to them for a change.

Anyone with half a brain knows that these services were created for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material. Sure they don't condone these actions officially, but they are certainly going to look the other way when it happens. As much as I hate the music/film industry, to defend these services saying that they are innocent and only intend for their networks to be used for legal purposes is lying to themselves.

That's not the argument. There's only question that matters: Is it possible to use the technology for purposes that are not illegal, even if it was never used for a legitimate purpose, or a legitimate purpose was never even conceived of before the challenge was made? If the answer is yes, then the technology is neutral.

You can rule on how people use the thing all day long, but there's no legitimate reason to ban a technology because people have used it irresponsibly.

Just as some illicit drugs can be used for perfectly legitimate medical uses. There are still laws that regulate those, banning a technology may hinder legitimate usage, but who says they won't try and regulate P2P in a similar fashion.

And there is still the question if banning illicit drugs actually make sense. It's more a thing of tradition, because from a objective point of view banning illicit drugs does not hinder their distribution, but increases the cost the society pays in terms of policing, criminality and wrongful deaths.

The only reason P2P technology is mostly used for copyright infringement is because the big media companies sued the fuck out of anyone who wanted to create a P2P system whether it was used for a legitimate purpose or not. So a lot of people who were doing legitimate research into creating P2P technologies stopped.

The only reason P2P technology is mostly used for copyright infringement is because the big media companies sued the fuck out of anyone who wanted to create a P2P system whether it was used for a legitimate purpose or not. So a lot of people who were doing legitimate research into creating P2P technologies stopped.

Actually I think thats not the case.

If you look at previous big piracy enabling technologies you will see that they have always simply been adopted by pirates to fill a need.

BitTorrent is no different, it was originally designed to distribute large file like linux distributions without the need to put a vast load on central servers. It was and still is a way that people who download a linux distribution could help free software in a way that did not involve them writing a single line of code, they just donated a small part of their out going bandwidth to help other people download the same thing they were.

In the past though there was Gnutella. This may have actually been designed purely for piracy, I did not work for nullsoft at the time so I do not know for sure. It was certainly filling a pre-existing need though since Napster had only recently been jumped on by the music industry.

Before napster though there was still usenet, this was certainly not designed as a piracy enabling technology but it sure was adapted as that by a great many people. There was also FTP, in this case people went round looking for anonymous FTP sites with a badly secured folder where they could create a hidden subdirectory to fill up with Warez.

The point of all this is to say that whatever technology is used at a particular time is not really relevant. What is relevant is that there are an awful lot of people out there who are quite happy to obtains something without paying for it. While these people exist they will always find a way of doing so, the method they use is the only thing that changes but that is largely irrelevant. If BitTorrent never existed we would still be using Gnutella. If none of these existed we would just be exchanging dropbox accounts on mailing lists or something.

Trying to stop piracy by jumping on individual technologies is like trying to play whack-a-mole on a table with an infinite number of holes. The industry now seems to have realised this and is trying to spend more money on educating young people that "piracy is bad". This is far more likely to work on the next generation but that is far from guaranteed. My generation just got to see them as an ailing industry that refused to adapt as new technologies were created and so that will likely be our lasting memory.

"Anyone with half a brain knows that these services were created for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material."

Everything not in the public domain is copyrighted. On one hand this doesn't mean is not intended to be shareable (obvious example being code copyrighted under the GPL), on the other, Spanish legislation is crystal clear: just sharing copyrighted material is perfectly legal (while the entertainment lobby is pressing hard to change this).

Well, there's a thought! You mean it has the same neutrality as a car, a knife, a gun? Sorry, where have I been all this time - I've been lead to believe that technology is somehow evil because it "may" be used for illegal activities.

"Technology", in the sense of basic principles, is certainly neutral. However, specific assemblages of technology - from a car, to a gun, to a spoon, or a computer program, certainly aren't neutral. they have good points and bad points, which are determined by their intended or designed use, their practical or common use, and their potential or possible use. How we allow for the use of given assemblies of technologies depends entirely on how we view the social cost-benefit equation of the assembled tool.

Many people want to ban certain tools based on their potential usage, which is either irrational or irresponsible (or displays a hidden agenda unrelated to the merits of the tool).

However, it is equally dishonest to judge a tool merely on its proclaimed intended usage.

As a society, we must look at the whole picture, and hopefully, error on the side of permissiveness. That does not mean that we should be shy about outlawing things whose negative potential and common usage significantly outweigh any benefit that is intended or common usage provides. Like everything else, it's a balancing act.

In this case, the judge did just that, much to the *IAA (or Spanish equivalent's) disappointment.

Knives of any form are considered deadly weapons. This is why you are charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" if you harm someone with a knife or any object that can take someone's life. Hell, they took forks and knives away from us my sophomore year in high school because 2 girls stabbed each other with the plastic utensils at school.

The Spanish press ( http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Pablo/Soto/industria/discografica/siempre/va/paso/detras/elpeputec/20111221elpeputec_3/Tes )also says this guy might be suing them back, because in the course of the lawsuit against him, these cartels applied some really dirty tactics against him (like hiring goons to follow him every day, etc.)

Your argument is based on the premise that there are no guns. There is a substantial difference between 'there are no guns' and 'guns are banned.' Attempts at prohibition often forget this difference (and most of the remainder is just a desire to keep certain behaviors out of sight regardless of the social ills this causes).

I've used handguns for hunting many times. It can be a far more difficult challenge than hitting your target from 400 meters with a.308 or other rifle.

You could also list them as a deterrent to criminal activities

Most states have very strict laws about the carrying of a concealed weapon. This is why your standard weapons permit only allows you to own the weapon and a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit does. CCW's are highly regulated to such an extent that most a

funnily enough, you can carry *unloaded* firearms in the UK - but they have to be concealed (this includes pistols in drop holsters). Rifles and shotguns can be carried through the middle of any city as long as they're in a case or slip Separate the barrel from the rest of the gun and it's just a piece of metal - as long as you can explain why you're walking through the middle of town holding sixteen inches of match-quality iron. Bows can be openly carried anywhere as long as they're not strung while in a p

No. It just means that the criminals will be carrying guns as well, and will try to shoot first.

If nobody of the regular public has guns, then a lot of the reasons for criminals to carry them go away as well. No death penalty helps here as well. The only criminals who carry a gun are those that are planning to use it, mostly against other criminals in such cases. But even there other methods like a bomb might be preferred.

In numbers:USA murders per 100,000: 5.5 (3.5 with firearms)Netherlands murders per 100

...then anyone who uses P2P in any of its forms is automatically violating copyright? We're talking anything from a crossover cable between two computers to a university compute cluster to the INTERNET here, folks - the labels, to put it bluntly, are fucking delusional.

World of Warcraft uses Bittorrent to distribute it's client and it's updatesNCSoft uses Bittorrent or a similar P2P protocol to distribute Lineage 2 filesMandriva distribute it's Linux CD and DVD using Bittorrent, including the "powerpack" edition (which is commercial)BitTorrent is increasingly used to transfer big LEGAL files by big companies...

Maybe we should have some big names like Blizzard and NCSoft (which are by no mean affiliated to that bunch of "OpenSource freaks") weight in in favor of the techno

But I mean, seriously... how much of a difference is there between deliberately conspiring to help somebody else break the law and then actually directly helping them?

Beats me. What difference is there between being "unlimited in length of term" and merely practically so because the length is constantly being enlarged at a rate which is faster or equal to the progression of time?

P2P helps people break the law in the very same way as FTP ad HTTP do. If you want to find real-world examples of P2P usage for legal purposes, just try to download some popular operating system image or a MMORPG installer, you'll probably find that they are also offered as P2P downloads because it results in less strain for the content owner's servers and potentially faster downloads for the content consumer.

Both FTP and HTTP have ton's legal uses and only a tiny fraction of illegal uses, with most P2P stuff it's exactly the reverse, they are optimized for illegal sharing and quite useless for legal sharing.

Hm...interesting...most P2P stuff is optimized for illegal sharing...thus explaining why Skype is optimized for legal VoIP calls. Somehow I get the feeling there are more Skype users out there than there are people using P2P filesharing systems to violate copyrights.

So in essence, if the goal of P2P was to make it easier for users to share legal stuff, it does an incredible shitty job at it.

The Internet itself was originally designed as a P2P system. If you are wondering what a network that is not P2P looks like, take a look at digital cable TV or some other thin client network. The whole point of the Internet is that any co

How about videos of cats doing funny things? Or dogs? or kids? Or art? Political speech? Open source software? There are plenty of examples of what people could legally publish. The big media cartels aren't the only ones who can produce content.

just be careful what you name it. I remember a case a few years back (can't find a link, sorry) where a teacher was whacked by the MPAA over an instructional video that just happened to have the same name as a (rather shitty) movie. Settled out of court, IIRC.